James Renwick, Ashford BC CIL Presentation

Report
KHG Future Funding Workshop
Community Infrastructure Levy
– 14 June 2013
James Renwick
Ashford Borough council
Main drivers behind CIL
Decreased Government funding – focus
on ‘deliverability’ and levering nongovernmental funding
Localism – generate (and
allocate) income ….locally
NPPF (and ‘Harman Report’) - LPAs to be
clear on what is going to be charged, Local
plans to show infrastructure can be
afforded
CIL – A changing picture……..
Planning
Act 2008
Localism
Act 2011
CIL: ‘….Duty to pass on…..’ ‘….appropriate available
evidence……’ ‘ ……support development’
Neighbourhood Planning
Local finance considerations
CIL: ‘infrastructure
to support
development’
‘definition of
infrastructure…..
affordable housing’
Removed affordable
housing from
definition of
infrastructure
Regs
2010
Regs
2011
Instalments
policy
Stat
Guidance
2010
‘….in the opinion of
the authority….’
Regs
2012
Regs
2013
‘Boles bung’
‘Section 73’
issue resolved
Stat
Guidance
2012
NPPF
2012
Harman Report
2012
‘….charging
authorities will
need to show
….’
Stat
Guidance
2013
‘spending /
reporting
by parish
councils’
The basics…..at present
•
Must prove there is a need to charge CIL…….???
•
Must show (broadly) what infrastructure will be S106 / CIL (Affordable
housing will remain as S106)
•
Must show that after introducing CIL a sufficient amount of sites (i.e
local plan housing target) will remain viable
•
CIL rates(s) set by economic viability after all other policy
costs considered
•
Charged per m2 on the increase in built floor space (GIA)
•
Divergence in rates for geography or ‘intended use’ –
where economically proven…….!
The basics…..at present
• Not compulsory…but S106 restricted (Regulation 123 – post April
2014)
• Required to collect– no discretion, precedence over other policy
requirements
• Payment as cash, or in land;
- 15% (cash) direct to the Parish council where development
occurred
- 25% if there is Neighbourhood Development Plan or
development approved through Neighbourhood
Development Order
•
Mandatory ‘Social housing relief’ – 100% relief on floor
space proposed, must be repaid if the unit changes to
private / market housing with 7 years (Housing Act
1988)
•
Development for the ‘purposes’ of a charity are exempt
•
Discretionary ‘charitable relief’ on investment activities
Current approaches / judgements (specific to housing)
• CIL being set with regard to adopted affordable housing policy ......
however some have modelled CIL around the assumption that AH
levels will be affected (or currently not being achieved) in certain
localities.
• Residential charges are a single
rate (but split geographically);
however some have proposed
threshold rates
• Discretionary charitable relief (relief on
investment activities) supported but very few
defined.
Proposed reforms…..
• ‘Scale’ of development to allow for
different rates
• Must publish a draft regulation 123
list as part of the examination
• CIL could be paid as the cash value of
infrastructure
• Mandatory (100%) relief for selfbuild homes
• Discretionary relief for ‘discounted
market sales’
Conclusions…..?
• Effect of Local finance considerations?
• Balance between affordable housing
and CIL? A key consideration in local
plan reviews
• More specific analysis on the ability for
certain locations to afford policy
requirements?

similar documents